Grief and love: Responses to death and disjuncture in homelessness research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responses to homelessness in Canada have been paternalistic, charity-based, and individualized, underpinned by capitalist and colonial ideologies that blame individuals for their own precarity. Increasingly, research has become a player in shifting responses to homelessness, with reforms-at times supported by federal, provincial, or municipal governments--increasingly purporting to support solutions to housing precarity. In housing systems, these shifts maintain an appeal to the State as responsible for addressing housing insecurity. Poison drug supplies and housing precarity intersect to cause loss, grief, and death. Compounding forms of violence in the healthcare system and judicial system shape the lives and deaths of those navigating homelessness, particularly those who simultaneously navigate racism, transphobia, poverty, and ableism. Despite the shortcomings of State responses to homelessness, people have long been mobilizing to take care of one another within social systems that, at best, are negligent, and at worst are active forces in their deaths. This article explores what radical care, in tandem with abolitionist and anarchist methods and aims, can afford those of us who are deeply grieving. This paper presents a review of literature highlighting connections between systemic causes and the invisibilization of grief in homelessness work. I explore these in conversation with (auto)ethnographic inquiry, to highlight what communities are actively doingβ, even as we are constantly trying to keep each other alive. I ask how we can continue to foster radical care and imagination for dismantling systems that kill our communities, while working in, around, and outside of them. I explore the ways that solidarity building and love-for those we work alongside as well as those we have lost-can be a way to learn and enact new spaces of home and health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".